If you are talking about the 2011 election, which Thaksin's party won with an absolute majority, there is no evidence of any vote-rigging by the winners. Far from it; the official independent observers judged the election "free and fair"; the two deputy leaders of the losing "Democrats", Korn and Alongkorn, have both acknowledged that vote-buying, while it still exists on all sides, played no significant part in the result. Interestingly, the Election Commission's report showed that the losing "Democrats" far outspent Thaksin's Pheu Thai party. The only area where the result gave grounds for suspicion was Bangkok; here the exit polls indicated that Thaksin's party had won a sweeping victory with 25 out of 33 seats. In the event the "Democrats" won 23 to Pheu Thai's 10. The point about exit polls is that major discrepancies are used as a primary indicator of the possibility of ballot-stuffing. Results in all other areas were largely in line with the exit polls.
As far as corruption is concerned, of course it is endemic in the country, though TPI and the World Bank's figures show that it is better than virtually all Thailand's neighbours and is about par for the region as a whole. The real problem, lies not with elected governments, either "Democrat"-led or Pheu Thai, but with the deeply entrenched bureaucracy, not least the military. It increased hugely after Thaksin was booted out by the military; it has not decreased significantly since Abhisit was booted out by the electors. As Yingluck has said about the current rice-pledging plan, the problem of graft lies not at the policy level, but at the operational level. I would have thought that as "an expat living in Thailand" you would be only too well aware of the existence of graft at this level on a daily basis.

Actually, Ukraine is the opposite of Thailand. In Ukraine, a (slim) majority favors the authoritarian government of Viktor Yanukovich. A (large) minority wants a democratic government like that in Poland.

In Thailand, a (small) minority favors an authoritarian government run by an unelected elite -- either the king or an appointed council of thugs. A (large) majority favors a democratic government like that in Japan.

Why cannot Thailand become Japan? The problem is that many members of the anti-democratic minority in Thailand remain in positions of power. They include judges in key courts, some commanders in the military, members of various commissions (like the one charging Yingluck Shinawatra with corruption), and the members of the royal family.

Thailand is one place where external intervention from, say, Tokyo would make a difference. A phone call from Prime Minister Shinzo Abe telling the powerful members of the key courts, various royalist military commanders, and commission members to resign might do the trick. The leverage that Abe has is that he can lead the Western effort to freeze the assets of the thugs (who surely have stashed their assets in the West), to deny them medical treatment in the West, etc.

Abe talks about leading the democracies in the Pacific. Time has come for him to act. Now.

Well, the Thai elites are a jolly bunch. One kangaroo court removed a pro-Thaksin PM for indulging his passion for cooking on public TV. And, prior to delivering their verdict against Thaksin himself, which sent him into exile, the 12 judges of that particular court were summoned by the King to his Hua Hin palace where they were sternly lectured about righteousness. The elites here are indeed a jolly bunch.
Thaksin's no saint. But the reason he keeps winning elections is because he's done a fair bit for the rural poor, people the previous governments pretended didn't exist.
Red vs. yellow, police vs. army, prince vs. the two princesses, lord it's a mess.

Good article - it finally moves beyond the cliche that this fight is about removing Thaksin's influence. As the article points out, the real aim is to maintain the feudal system against the 'unwashed masses' and their aspirations for a greater stake in Thailand. Those Chinese immigrant merchant families spent too many years marrying their sons and daughters into influential establishment families (bureaucracy, army, aristocracy) that they have too much to lose if the patronage system is challenged.

This is the classic response of a certain type of Thai, which refuses to admit criticism, particularly when it comes from an outside source.It is of course one of the reasons why The Economist is so regularly made unavailable in Thailand.

Interesting to compare Thailand and Ukraine. Both have democratically-elected governments but both have a percentage of the population willing to fight to remove them. The governments in both places are seen to be corrupt, but the requirements of democracy haven't been accepted by people or institutions whose interests aren't served by the status quo.

So what makes democracy as practiced in places like Scandinavia, the US and Britain work? It can only be strong institutions developed over hundreds of years. An independent judiciary free from political interference, a professional, apolitical army, and a civil service that serves the people, not politicians.

Thailand, Ukraine, Russia, China etc etc don't have those yet. If building such institutions was only a matter of time then Russia and China would already have them, but they don't, so something else is going on. One hesitates to say it is down to ethnicity, because that would be racist. But if anyone has an answer, let me know.

You make some good points but a few rather odd ones.
"keep the promises he made to the rural North, he cashed that check with taxpayer money after he got into office--most of which came from the tax-paying middle class in Bangkok and the South."
Tax money is invested countrywide, depending on anticipated ROI, not just where it's collected. That's as it should be not only in Thailand but any country with a government that purports to treat its citizens equitably. And the ROI wouldn't be just in baht-count but in terms of quality of life as well.
Pre-Thaksin the rural areas N and NE were seeing very little government investment. Over the past decade that they have, economic growth has been at more than double the rate of the rest of the country. Which means the tax base there has grown too (of course).
Win-win. Did Thaksin do it purely of altruism and with no eye to vote-getting? No and no. But it doesn't change the fact that it was a good investment. The problem with the Democrats before him was their entirely upper-class entitled attitude (sort of like some blue-blooded Republicans if you compare with the US). The poor are poor because of destiny (and sins in past lives) and should gratefully serve in the factories and homes of the rich.
Thaksinism, probably unwittingly, has threatened this centuries-long feudal order. Which, of course, has the elite, ranging from old money to the monarchy, up in arms.
"Yingluck will most likely be shown the door if the Corruption Commission finds her guilty of malfeasance over the disastrous Rice Pledging Scheme."
You can't be serious. The courts here are yellow and partisan. Nobody pretends otherwise. They tend to judge for the elite provided they are assured the army's got their back, which doesn't seem to be the case this time around from utterances of the top general. So, it's likely they will hedge and fudge.
Interesting times.

It's not even just institutions, necessarily. Look carefully and you'll find that Britain actually has almost no formal institutions that exist for the purpose of safeguarding democracy. But because the democratic ideal is held by both the ruling elite and the common people, nobody would ever seriously considering taking major undemocratic actions, and if they did, they would be stopped by others in the ruling class even though they have no responsibility to do so.
China and Russia have long and rich histories. But building a stable democracy is not about the length of history, of cultural solidarity, or the degree of enlightenment in culture. What matters is that there is a culture of compromise, that there is a consensus in society that power belongs to the majority, and disputes like elections are simply to determine who possesses that mandate rather than whether or not popular sovereignty is the basis of the right to rule. Despite the length and wealth of China's history, there is little that could convince the ruling classes of our country to bow to the will of the people.

Fair enough, Economist, since at a glance an easy argument can be made that a democratically elected government is under siege by hidebound traditional elites. That is in large part true. Fact is, there are no good guys to be found in this struggle due to longstanding flaws in the Thai political/value systems. Corruption is rampant in the present government run by the Shinawatra Clan, and the same could be said for previous administrations of the Democratic Party. The Thaksin regime of pre-coup days had many human rights abuses that could be lain at their feet--much as can be said about previous Democratic administrations, so little really separates the two except for how the rural North is paternally regarded.
At the heart of Thailand's trouble is that many of its citizens still cling to the belief that one's devotion to the group one belongs to holds sway over the benefit of Thai society as a whole. A fairly recent poll taken by the Bangkok Post revealed that almost 70% of Thais responded in the affirmative when asked if they could tolerate corruption in government--as long as it benefitted them personally. Combine this mode of thought with an educational system that poorly prepares students for anything except obedience to authority, and one can be little surprised at the present state of Thai politics.
Thaksin figured out some time back that through cash politics, cronyism, and some good old fashioned vote buying that he could stay in office indefinitely. To keep the promises he made to the rural North, he cashed that check with taxpayer money after he got into office--most of which came from the tax-paying middle class in Bangkok and the South. The present divvying up of the corruption pie leaves out the tradtional elites--but they get to pay for it with their tax dollars, er, baht. Any wonder they're p.o.'d?
Now the Shinawatras are desperate, as the writing on the wall says Yingluck will most likely be shown the door if the Corruption Commission finds her guilty of malfeasance over the disastrous Rice Pledging Scheme. Over the last weekend, Red Shirt leaders were let off the chain. In rallies around Thailand, they made noise that they won't tolerate a change in government, no matter how austere the official body is makling the pronouncement that Yingluck is guilty and the Pheu Thai government is no more. They've promised everything from invasion of Bangkok to government-in-exile to armed resistance.
Things are really about to get interesting, and probably not in a good way...

Thailand is a country of three levels namely, royalist, elite class in Bangkok and poor peasants and farmers in the north; They were not tough enough like Japanese whose character of barbarianism more over the civilized behavior (this was termed by a famous French philosopher) and so bowed to command was and is their way of life; Hence, in Japanese invasion to Korea and China, their superiors told the subordinate that Chinese is a sub-human-being, can be slaughtered, raped and whatever tortures can be inflicted to the sub-human-being; What a nonsense as they forgot that their written language and many etiquette were borrowed from Chinese. They had their punishment of 2 atomic bombs dropped to Kawasaki and Hiroshima that compelling them to surrender but they unilaterally turned these 2 bombs as enough penalty of their horrible war crimes. What a sarcastic and unacceptable joke of history!!!

Talking about the present situation of Thailand, only the Bangkok elites of royalists, vested interests and armed forces can save it from disintegration by accepting the popular votes of the winning poor from the north.

They can topple Yingluck's govt by all means such as judicial biased judgment and so on; The north sure to fight back and also kick them out using Bangkok elites' tactics too; What is the ending, disintegration would be the only outcome, I afraid.

Abe's own behavior makes the quality of Japanese democracy seem dubious, especially in contrast to the good behavior of his predecessors, and the first opposition electoral win in Japanese history a few years prior.

Two points:
Thaksin is not "a former leader now in exile", he's a convicted criminal on the run. You show your sympathies from the very start with your choice of language, glossing over the actual facts as do most Western media sources.
To say that the only reason the protesters want Yingluck removed is "simply because they do not like her and her brother" is simplistic in the extreme and very misleading. I think the fact that her fugitive brother is pulling the strings behind the scenes is what they object to. That and her attempt to push through an amnesty bill that would have allowed him to return to Thailand free of all charges. Does that sound like the actions of an honest politician?
If you believe your coverage to be fair and unbiased, ask yourself the following questions:
1. If the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom were convicted of corruption, could you realistically see his sister being allowed to run the country in his absence, after he fled from justice?
2. If I, as a private citizen, were convicted of a criminal offence in the UK and chose to go on the run rather than face the consequences of my actions, would you describe me as "living in exile"? I don't think you would.

EaglesGift: Can you please tell me what were the rationale of Yellow-shirter sealed prime ministers etc office are legal in Thailand if you talked about United Kingdom's judiciary.

Throughout my life I have never seen protesters sealed govt. offices and didn't meed with police or security forces' implementation of laws and orders in any country except now in Thailand and Ukraine.

I saw the news that Thailand is asking UN to help to quell the present situation; If that was true; The ending would be UN be the referee presiding the election and will see Yingluck and her party return to power.

Would Suthep and his supporters etc accept that judgement from the peoples???

You don't seem to disappoint anyone who regularly reads your articles about Thai politics by consistently delivering poorly written analyses. This current one reminds me of someone who writes something in a coffee shop somewhere, probably not even in Bangkok. I also feel sick and tired of comments from those who just don't know they're talking about something out of their depth! If anyone including the writer of this article want to read about what's really happening in Thailand with good analysis supported by genuine knowledge and factual information about the country and the people, please visit this: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/SEA-01-130114.html It is written by Dr Jeffrey Race who has lived in Thailand for over 46 years. After reading it, I would expect your next article about Thai politics to shy away from an overly simplistic paradigm of the fight between the urban rich and the rural poor! Our problems are much more complex than that and we know we need to clean up all the trash left by Thaksin's regime before a new election can be held. We do not need your concurrence as to how we would go about correcting our system. And please do not attempt to pass any comments on something that you know very little about. It would be of no use to anyone but only cause vexations to our spirits!

"expat living in Thailand". It's surely not the Thailand I live in. Anybody still saying in 2014 that Thaksin buys elections is detached from a reality he or she loathes and tries not to recognize. You don't need a weatherman to know which way monsoons blow.

I also wonder whether you see this rice pledging scheme a means for corruption, probably at the largest scale in these recent years. If so, why should not it be penalized as such? This is also the case for the Democrat administration in the past. Anything that went wrong with them should also be penalized. And this is probably the reform this country really needs. I'm very annoyed when people are finger pointing on the other's fraud and keep silent on those of their ally.

While Thailand constitutional court is pondering the verdict (justified or not is the criteria) to be against Yingluck whose supporters are now blocking the Anti-Corruption Agency to prosecute her for misdeed.

An eye for an eye, what is the ending???

Your pills given to me yesterday, I repaid them the same to you today.

I just wonder did Thailand really possessing rationale and minimum human dignity to run their country.

I do not agree with this article, as an expat living in Thailand since 2005. Unlike the article states, there is no democratically elected government, on the contrary, the elections were rigged and rife with vote buying and corruption. The latest elections were boycotted by the opposition as it is simply no use to go vote for these fake elections. Exactly this endemic corruption is the driving force of the protestors, and not an economic motive as the article states. Many protestors do not agree with protest leader Suthep either, but they support him as they feel he is the only chance to get rid of the fake, so called democratic but ultra corrupt government which is keeping the living standard down for the middle class, while keeping the poor uneducated and weak for self serving reasons ...